MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412387468 · doi:10.54393/pjhs.v6i6.2609

Mandibular Symphyseal Height Determination in Various Vertical Patterns

2025· article· en· W4412387468 on OpenAlexaff
Saadia Ata, Anum Aziz, Muhammad Azeem, Qasim Khalid, Kashif Haroon, Navin R Chaudhary

Bibliographic record

VenuePakistan Journal of Health Sciences · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicOrthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
Canadian institutionsCollège Montmorency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOrthodonticsMathematicsGeologyStatisticsGeodesyBiologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The mandibular symphysis is a crucial anatomical structure influencing facial aesthetics and harmony. Its morphology is pivotal in determining optimal lower incisor positioning, especially in borderline orthodontic cases requiring meticulous treatment planning. Objective: To determine and compare symphyseal dimensions in different vertical patterns of skeletal class I cases. Methods: The study was designed as a cross-sectional study. Data was analyzed using SPSS 25, with mean and standard deviations used for quantitative variables and frequency and proportions for qualitative data. Statistical significance was assessed using chi-square tests for gender and ANOVA for symphysis height and vertical facial patterns, with a P-value ≤0.05 considered significant. Results: Male subjects with Hypodivergent (↓D), Normodivergent (ND)and Hyperdivergent (↑D) profiles showed no statistically significant difference in Id-Me, whereas female subjects showed statistically significant difference in Id-Me between (↓D) and (↑D) subjects. Additionally, a notable sex difference was observed in Id-Me, with significant variations between males and females. In contrast, the differences in LI between males and females were found to be statistically non-significant (P > 0.05). Conclusion: This article reflected that males show longer chin than females.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.332

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.357 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePakistan Journal of Health SciencesSame topicOrthodontics and Dentofacial OrthopedicsFrench-language works237,207